osint

Query Power Demand

query_power_demand_v1

Read-onlyIdempotent

Query verified U.S. hourly electricity demand (MW) by balancing authority from EIA-930.

Use this for "how much load" questions at the hourly balancing-authority grain: filter or group by balancing_authority_code, region, data_date (or the data_date_from/data_date_to range), hour_number, datetime_utc, or is_imputed. Pass filters inside the params object. Returns JSON aggregates with citations and optional row-level records when include_records is true. demand_mw is EIA's own cleaned (Adjusted) series, with receipts: the as-reported demand_mw_raw and the is_imputed flag ride every detail record. demand_forecast_mw is the same row's day-ahead forecast, so forecast-vs-actual misses need no second query. History runs hourly from 2015-07-01 onward and is served by default: a bare data_date anywhere in that window answers from the newest promoted vintage covering it, and the response as_of is that knowledge cut. A query with NO calendar window (no data_date, data_date_from, or data_date_to) and no calendar-axis group_by defaults to the latest day that has reported demand — not the full history — and says so in a default_latest_day note; group by data_date or datetime_utc, or pass a date range, to read a series over time. Pin as_of to an earlier vintage to reproduce exactly what was served then; one response may cite several source files, and every citation carries its own file and vintage. An empty result names the served coverage window in an empty_scope note. Demand is NOT additive across balancing authorities: a result summing more than one BA carries a ba_aggregation scope note and ranking remainders omit the demand metrics — group by balancing_authority_code for the source-grain series. Does not determine plant, generator, county, or state attribution (EIA-930 carries no such IDs, and BA footprints do not follow state lines), US48 or regional totals (computed rollups are refused; EIA's own published series is the named follow-up), installed capacity (MW — use power.capacity), monthly plant generation (use power.generation), retail sales/revenue/customers (use power.retail_sales), wholesale prices, or long-horizon forecasts (the EIA-930 forecast is day-ahead only).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds contextual behavior: default latest day when no calendar window, vintage/as_of semantics, empty_scope notes, and citation behavior. It discloses that demand is not additive and that BA aggregation produces scope notes plus omitted demand metrics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

While the description is lengthy, every sentence contributes critical information for correct use, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The structure flows from purpose to usage, defaults, caveats, and exclusions, making it dense but efficient for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a free-form params schema and output schema present, the description covers all essential behavior: default windows, vintage handling, non-additivity, exclusions, and alternative tools. It effectively serves as the sole documentation for the tool's usage and edge cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides only a generic 'params' object with no property descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by enumerating filterable fields (balancing_authority_code, region, data_date, hour_number, datetime_utc, is_imputed, data_date_from/to), include_records, as_of, and group_by behavior, plus defaults and scope notes.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Query verified U.S. hourly electricity demand (MW) by balancing authority from EIA-930.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating it does not compute rollups and names alternative tools for capacity, generation, and retail sales.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states when to use ('how much load' questions at the hourly balancing-authority grain) and provides exclusions with alternative tools ('use power.capacity', 'use power.generation', etc.). It also warns against non-additivity across balancing authorities, giving clear guidance for correct usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All osint tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each capability has a clearly named describe/query pair, and domains like power, AI infrastructure, robotics, and space are distinct. The generic describe_capability_v1/query_capability_v1 could be confused with the named variants, and the many ISO-specific interconnection queues share similar names, but descriptions explicitly disambiguate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern: describe_<capability>_v1 and query_<capability>_v1, with a few utility tools like list_capabilities_v1 and get_source_evidence_v1. There is no mixing of conventions.

Tool Count2/5

At 62 tools, the set is far too large for typical server scope. The describe/query pairs inflate the count even though each is justified, and the generic capabilities plus per-ISO variants make it feel heavy and hard to navigate.

Completeness4/5

The server covers each domain thoroughly with describe, query, and evidence verification, plus generic fallbacks for capabilities not yet in the client's tool list. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no county/state attribution for some data, no load types in ISO queues) but they are explicitly documented and workable.

Resources

Need Help?